This bill codifies a hard bar on removing Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism until the government satisfies conditions described in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, with the requisite presidential determination specified in that act. It frames removal as a legal decision tethered to specified criteria rather than a discretionary policy shift.
The FORCE Act also anchors the threshold for designation to existing statutory triggers, ensuring that designation status remains a tool of U.S. policy until Cuba demonstrates the required changes under law.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 2(a) bars removal of Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list until the LIBERTAD Act Section 205 determination is made. Section 2(b) defines “state sponsor of terrorism” by four statutory triggers and any other applicable provision of law.
Who It Affects
Affects the President, the Secretary of State, and other agencies responsible for designations and sanctions (e.g., Treasury/OFAC) as they implement Cuba policy under existing statutes.
Why It Matters
Maintains leverage over Cuba through a statutory safeguard, reducing the risk of premature delisting and preserving the policy framework that supports sanctions and related measures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The FORCE Act explicitly prevents the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism until a specific Congressional-required determination under the LIBERTAD Act is completed. That means the executive branch cannot de-list Cuba unless the designated conditions are satisfied as described in LIBERTAD’s framework.
To support this, the bill defines what counts as a “state sponsor of terrorism” by pointing to four long-standing statutes (the Export Control Reform Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and any other applicable law). In effect, removal remains a conditional decision governed by established legal tests rather than a political judgment.
The act thus solidifies a formal clearance path for delisting that depends on achieving the LIBERTAD Act determination, reinforcing sanctions policy and signaling a high bar to altering Cuba’s designation status. This creates a stable legal baseline for policy makers, sanctions administrators, and international partners who coordinate on counterterrorism and foreign aid.
The FORCE Act thus links designation status to a defined legal process, reducing ambiguity and anchoring future policy moves in statute rather than circumstance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the President to withhold removal of Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list until the LIBERTAD Act Section 205 determination is made.
‘State sponsor of terrorism’ is defined by statutory triggers across four laws (Export Control Reform Act, Foreign Assistance Act, Arms Export Control Act, or any other law).
It codifies a named short title: FORCE Act (Fighting Oppression until the Reign of Castro Ends).
Removal prohibitions apply to both the President and the Secretary of State.
The measure relies on preexisting statutory criteria to govern whether Cuba remains listed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 designates the act as the FORCE Act. This establishes the legal label for reference in policy documents, official communications, and future amendments. The short title is intended to align legislative branding with the policy objective of maintaining leverage over Cuba’s designation status.
Prohibition on removal from state sponsors of terrorism list
Section 2(a) generally bars removing Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list until the LIBERTAD Act Section 205 determination is made. Section 2(b) defines the term “state sponsor of terrorism” by tying it to four statutory triggers—the Export Control Reform Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Control Act—and any other applicable law. Together, these provisions create a codified standard for evaluating removal decisions and ensure that delisting is contingent on meeting defined legal criteria.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Office of the Secretary of State and sanctions policy staff who manage designation status and must apply a consistent standard.
- Treasury/OFAC and related sanctions enforcement programs that rely on the designation to structure compliance and monitoring.
- Congressional foreign affairs committees that oversee Cuba policy and need clear statutory guardrails for designation decisions.
- U.S. allies in the Western Hemisphere and partners coordinating sanctions policy who rely on durable, rules-based designations.
- U.S. private-sector actors with Cuba-related exposure who benefit from clarity and predictability in sanctions regimes.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. exporters and financial institutions facing ongoing compliance obligations tied to designation status and potential delisting
- U.S. agencies incurring administrative and legal costs to implement the LIBERTAD Act-based determination processes
- Policy staff and legal counsel across agencies who must interpret and apply the four statutory triggers in practice
- Cuba policy holders who must operate under a more restrictive or extended designation period until the LIBERTAD criteria are satisfied
- Industries with indirect exposure to sanctions policy, including travel, remittances, and related services, which may face prolonged uncertainty
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to preserve maximum leverage via a formal, statute-based barrier to delisting or to keep delisting options available if Cuba makes meaningful changes outside the four statutory triggers. This creates a trade-off between maintaining consistent, law-based control and remaining flexible to adapt to evolving circumstances in U.S.-Cuba relations.
The bill’s central design— tying removal from the list to a LIBERTAD Act determination—rests on the assumption that Cuba will meet specific legal criteria. That framing raises questions about how “certain conditions” will be validated and what happens if Cuba takes actions that are substantive but do not map cleanly to the existing triggers.
There is also the possibility of policy friction if other aspects of U.S.-Cuba engagement evolve in parallel with the designation status, potentially complicating diplomatic options or humanitarian considerations. Implementation will require careful coordination across the State Department, Treasury, and intelligence and national security communities to avoid gaps or inconsistencies in enforcement and messaging.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.